It is easy to predict the rival but equally self-reinforcing ways in which some will seek to frame Britain's day of public sector strikes. On the one side, the defiant marches and rallies of tens of thousands, kids and parents cheering the striking teachers, pensioners' groups alongside protesting unions, the very picture of heart-stirring working-class solidarity aroused to defend its conditions. On the other, a wholly different set of images, of queues of frustrated holidaymakers fuming about missing their flights, of headteachers and plucky parents battling to keep classrooms open in the face of union bullying, a photographers' hunt to find Ed Miliband crossing a picket line, perhaps even a punch-up with the police, if the Daily Mail really gets lucky.

Two nations with irreconcilable views of the dispute? That's what some on both sides want you to believe, seeing only what they want to see and pointing to opinion polls which show a public divide – although a majority is actually against the strikes. Yet this picture of a polarised Britain is neither helpful nor true – not yet, anyway. It is perfectly possible to believe both that the workers have a grievance and that they should not strike. Or that the rightwing rhetoric about gold-plated pensions and runaway costs is offensive, even though the system also needs realistic reform and restraint. What the public really wants, we strongly suspect, is a fair, pragmatic and lasting settlement. In many ways, we are still more one nation than two about this – and we will still be so tomorrow.

The strikes are a milestone. But do not exaggerate them. They are a significant expression of feeling, not the start of an all-out battle for mastery of the state. But that does not mean dismissing the strikes as having no consequence. The government should understand that the public seems to accept that there are strong feelings among the workforce, recognises that there are difficult and serious issues at stake, and is sympathetic to the predicament of people who are being asked to accept some worsening of their conditions. Ministers would therefore be extremely unwise to overplay their hand.

Yet the unions also need to grasp that there may be another less sympathetic side to the public's view of the dispute. Many aspects of the pensions system are not sustainable. There need to be changes, which are likely to involve working longer and paying in a bit more, where that is affordable, as is the case with private sector pensions and the state pension. And the defined benefit commitment that has been promised to the unions is a benefit very much worth having – as the millions who have lost it in the private sector know only too well. The unions need to be acutely sensitive to the limits of public sympathy.

Neither side has negotiated entirely seriously. On both sides there are those who see the dispute more as an opportunity to embarrass Mr Miliband – who is right to keep his distance from it – than as an event that can pave the way to a settlement. But there are undoubtedly areas for negotiation and Unison's Dave Prentis, who has rattled his sabre in the past, said this week that the latest talks were serious negotiations. There is room for compromise on local authority pensions and on transitional arrangements, which can be used to ease concerns among those who are expecting to retire soon. These are big areas for discussion. So, we say, discuss them and make a deal. The country wants a solution, not on absolutely any terms, but on the basis of a fair and affordable set of changes that will last and which can be brought in with as much sensitivity and flexibility as possible. Today's strike is neither a festival of the oppressed nor a threat to all we hold dear. It is a stage to be got through. Further strikes would be wrong. The important thing is to negotiate a just compromise. Government and unions must get on and settle this dispute.